Prior Collector sanction is mandatory for Mahar Watan land transfers, but its absence does not automatically void the sale, rules Bombay High Court

The suit land was originally Mahar Watan land and was regranted to the original occupants on 23 July 1968.

Certain respondents executed powers of attorney in favour of respondent No. 5, who subsequently executed a registered sale deed dated 30 November 2012 in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 without obtaining prior permission under Section 5(4) of the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958 (“1958 Act”).

The original owners later obtained the Collector’s permission to transfer 3 Hectares 89 R of the land and executed a registered sale deed dated 31 May 2013 in favour of the petitioners.

Mutation Entry No. 755 relating to the earlier sale was cancelled, while Mutation Entry No. 757 relating to the petitioners’ sale was directed to be certified by the revenue authorities.

The Minister subsequently allowed revision applications filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 5, cancelled the Collector’s permission and set aside Mutation Entry No. 757 by orders dated 4 September 2019, as corrected on 11 September 2019.

The Minister principally relied on the earlier registered sale deed and Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, holding that the vendors had no subsisting rights to execute the later sale deed.

The petitioners challenged those orders in writ jurisdiction.

1. Whether insertion of Section 5(4) by the 2002 amendment changed the legal position governing transfers of Mahar Watan land?

2. Whether the expression “previous sanction” in Section 5(4) makes prior sanction an essential condition of transfer, so that a transfer made without it is void?

3. Whether the principles in Vithal Kondhalkar, Sheikh Lal, Bhagwantrao, Narsingh Laxman Bahirwade and Mohan Sonaji Shilwant continue to apply to transfers of Mahar Watan land after insertion of Section 5(4)?

4. Whether the principles in LIC v. Escorts Ltd., Asha John Divianathan, Saraswati Shamrao Dhere and Vinodchandra Sakarlal Kapadia governed the interpretation of Section 5(4)?

5. Whether the Minister was entitled to determine the competing proprietary rights of the rival purchasers solely by applying Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act?

The Court applied Section 5 of the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958, particularly Section 5(4), which requires the previous sanction of the Collector and payment of the amount prescribed by the State Government before transfer or partition of regranted Mahar Watan land.

The 2002 amendment retained Government control over Mahar Watan land, although it relaxed restrictions applicable to other inferior village Watan lands.

The Court relied on Vithal Kondhalkar v. State of Maharashtra and Sheikh Lal v. Malhari, which treated the Collector’s sanction and prescribed payment as requirements capable of subsequent regularisation under the statutory scheme.

It also considered LIC v. Escorts Ltd. and Asha John Divianathan, recognising that the word “previous” must be given meaning, but that the legal consequence of non-compliance depends on the statutory scheme.

Unlike statutes such as Section 43(2) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Section 5(4) does not expressly declare a transfer made without previous sanction to be void.

Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act remains subject to the special statutory scheme and cannot by itself determine title where the revenue authority lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate competing proprietary claims.

The Court held that the 2002 amendment deliberately continued Government supervision over Mahar Watan land, making previous sanction under Section 5(4) mandatory.

However, the absence of prior sanction does not automatically render a transfer void ab initio because Section 5(4) contains no express declaration of invalidity; instead, the transfer remains subject to the consequences and regularisation machinery under the 1958 Act and the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.

The earlier decisions permitting subsequent sanction and regularisation therefore continued to be relevant, including in relation to Mahar Watan land.

The Minister consequently erred by treating the earlier sale deed as conclusively transferring absolute title and by applying Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act without first determining the statutory consequences of the alleged breach of Section 5(4).

Revenue authorities may decide whether statutory conditions, payment and sanction requirements have been met and what consequences follow under the Watan Abolition Act, but they cannot adjudicate inter se civil title, validity of rival conveyances, cancellation of powers of attorney or priority between purchasers.

The Minister could not decide the rival purchasers’ title merely by applying Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the finding that the earlier sale deed completely extinguished the vendors’ rights was unsustainable.

The writ petition was allowed; the Minister’s order dated 4 September 2019 in Revision Application No. 3418/6148/File No. 120/J/5 was quashed and set aside.

Questions concerning civil title, validity of the rival sale deeds, cancellation of powers of attorney and other proprietary rights were left open for determination by the competent civil court on their own merits.

There was no order as to costs.